On March 11, 2020, representatives from the American Bankers Association, AmericanAssociation of Healthcare Administrative Management, American Financial ServicesAssociation, ACA International, Consumer Bankers Association, Credit Union NationalAssociation, Mortgage Bankers Association, National Association of Federally-Insured CreditUnions, National Automobile Dealers Association, and National Council of Higher EducationResources (collectively, the Associations) met by telephone with Zenji Nakazawa, Public Safetyand Consumer Protection Advisor for Chairman Ajit Pai, and Arielle Roth, Wireline LegalAdvisor for Commissioner Michael O’Rielly, in separate meetings. The Associations also metby telephone with Travis Litman, Chief of Staff for Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel, andJoseph Calascione, Wireline and Consumer Legal Advisor for Commissioner Brendan Carr, inseparate meetings on March 13, 2020. A full list of meeting participants is provided inAppendices A and B.

During the meetings, the Associations expressed support for the Commission’s goal to reduceillegal automated calls and acknowledged the myriad efforts by companies that provide voicetelephony services (Voice Service Providers or Providers) to help combat this problem. We also reiterated points made in our recent ex parte filing of March 4, 2020, which summarized thefirsthand and statistical evidence in the record demonstrating the substantial blocking andmislabeling of lawful calls, including calls implicating public safety and health.

When outbound calling numbers used by legitimate businesses are mislabeled, or calls fromthose numbers are blocked, consumers are harmed because they may not receive lawful callsaffecting their health, safety, or financial well-being. These calls include, for example, safetyalerts, fraud alerts, data security breach notifications, product recall notices, healthcare andprescription reminders, and power outage updates. It is critical that these calls be completedwithout delay. The Associations’ March 4 letter identified a number of steps that Voice ServiceProviders should take to minimize or remediate the blocking of lawful calls, including providingreal-time notification and establishing transparent and effective redress mechanisms.

The Associations believe that full implementation of the STIR/SHAKEN call authenticationframework represents an important step toward achieving the shared goal of eliminating illegalautomated calls. We applauded the Commission’s draft Report and Order and Further Notice ofProposed Rulemaking, which implements provisions of the TRACED Act requiring deploymentof STIR/SHAKEN in the IP networks of Voice Service Providers. As reflected in the draftOrder, however, deployment of STIR/SHAKEN will occur in stages. Some of the majorProviders have already implemented the framework for residential and consumer wireless callswithin or between their networks. Many other Voice Service Providers, as the TRACED Actrecognizes, will need more time.

If a Provider that carries a call is not able to validate the origin of the call because the Providerhas not fully deployed STIR/SHAKEN, that call may not be validated by other Providers in thecall’s pathway and instead be blocked. Moreover, there is still no industry consensus onaddressing the “signing” of calls originating from business establishments or time-divisionmultiplexing (TDM) networks. These factors suggest that serial implementation ofSTIR/SHAKEN could exacerbate the blocking of lawful calls.

The Associations therefore ask the Commission to revise its draft Order to require Voice ServiceProviders not to block unsigned calls until the STIR/SHAKEN framework has been fullyimplemented. Moreover, the Commission should permit Voice Service Providers that have fully implemented the framework to block only calls that have not been properly authenticated orthose that have been authenticated, but where the Provider has concluded with a high degree ofcertainty that the calls was placed illegally.

The Associations also expressed concern regarding the Commission’s determination at paragraph54 of the draft Order to give Voice Service Providers free reign in displaying call authenticationinformation to their subscribers. We recognize that informing call recipients that the numberdisplayed on the recipient’s caller ID has been authenticated is an important component of theSTIR/SHAKEN framework. However, as described above, many Voice Service Providers havenot yet begun to implement the framework, and certain calls cannot be validated, including callsoriginating from TDM networks or business establishments. Under these circumstances, thepresence of a “green checkmark” to represent a validated call could lead call recipients toconclude incorrectly that the absence of a checkmark means the call was placed illegally.

Moreover, there is no consensus in the telecommunications industry for how to displaySTIR/SHAKEN information, nor has the issue been addressed through the Internet EngineeringTask Force, a standards body composed of network designers, operators, vendors, andresearchers. There are also no defined criteria that Voice Service Providers must apply indisplaying authentication information. For example, it is uncertain whether Voice ServiceProviders will provide a “green checkmark” only for calls receiving an “A-Level” attestation (thehighest level of validation) or will provide a checkmark based on unvetted analytics, supplantingthe role of STIR/SHAKEN for determining the authentication status of the call. It also is notclear how Providers will assess calls that originate from other Providers that have not been ableto implement STIR/SHAKEN but that otherwise lack indicia that the call was placed unlawfullyor fraudulently.

In light of these open questions, the Associations request that the Commission seek furthercomment on the display of STIR/SHAKEN information to called parties. The Commission andall stakeholders will benefit from a more detailed record regarding the criteria Providers willapply in labeling outbound calling numbers, the effect on consumer behavior of the informationdisplayed in the recipient’s caller ID, and whether derogatory call labels are being displayed forlawful calls, including lawfully spoofed calls.associations Thank you for your consideration of these requests. We look forward to continuing to work withthe Commission to combat illegal automated calls, while ensuring that the lawful, and oftentime-sensitive, calls that our members place are not erroneously blocked.